Shelin Chen v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHELIN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70801
Agency No. A201-007-870
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Shelin Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying
his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70801
1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chen failed to
establish past harm rising to the level of persecution, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d
1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (single arrest, interrogation, and beating did not rise
to the level of persecution), or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of a protected ground, see id. at 1021-22. Thus, we deny the petition as to Chen’s
asylum claim.
Because Chen did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of Chen’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government upon his return. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --